Advocates Can Protest Peacefully But Preventing Police From Producing Arrested Advocate Before Court Prima Facie Attracts Offence Under Section 225 Of IPC: Madras High Court
It is most extremely significant to pay our singular unremitting attention to note that while drawing a red line for advocates, we see that the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ajith Kumar S vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Another in Crl.O.P.No.29355 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.19964 of 2025 in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:MHC:3243 that was reserved on 23.07.2026 and then finally pronounced on 05.08.2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably sending a loud and clear message that while advocates may hold a democratic and peaceful protest to express solidarity, preventing the police from producing arrested advocates before a court crosses the limits of protest and prima facie attracts the offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be noted that the Madras High Court was hearing a criminal original petition that had been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of Crime No.11 of 2025 that had been registered by the Flower Bazaar Police, High Court, Chennai, for offences under Sections 186, 152 and 225 of the IPC. It must be borne in mind that the High Court said that even if excess had been committed against the two advocates, the lawful course was to object before the Court where they were being produced, urge the Presiding Officer not to accept remand and seek legal remedies.
By all accounts, we thus see that the Madras High Court in such a scenario explicitly held that in view of the video material that had been considered by the Security Committee, the matter could not be quashed on the ground that no prima facie case under Section 225 of the IPC existed. We also must observe that the Court found no basis to proceed under Sections 186 and 152 IPC, but held most explicitly that the material disclosed a prima facie case under Section 225 IPC. While adding a caveat, we see the Court, however made the quashing conditional upon the petitioners filing affidavits expressing regret within ten working days. It was clarified that if any petitioner fails to file such an affidavit, the case against that petitioner may proceed with reference to the offence under Section 225 IPC.
At the very outset, this progressive, pragmatic, pertinent and persuasive judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of Madras High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The prayer in this Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is to call for the records in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police and to quash the same.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 stating that, “Upon perusal of the allegations contained in the First Information Report, it appears that the Hon’ble Security Committee of the High Court, after perusing the video footage pertaining to the protest of the Advocates, concluded that the said action amounts to obstruction of public servants from performing their duty and also attracts penal offences. Accordingly, it directed that a complaint be forwarded to the Bar Council for further action and that a complaint be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Esplanade Police Station, with a request to register a case and investigate the matter. Pursuant thereto, the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Madras, lodged a complaint, and the case is now registered for the alleged offences under Sections 186, 152 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “On further perusal of the material records of the case, it is seen that with reference to Crime No.396 of 2023 on the file of the Sathankadu Police Station, the Police had apprehended two Advocates, Dinesh and Neeraj, and brought them to be produced before the concerned Court, namely, the Special Court under the N.D.P.S Act, and for that purpose, kept them confined in the Police Control Room Booth. The petitioners/accused, being the Advocates, protested despite warnings from the personnel guarding the Courts inside the Court premises and also prevented the Police from exercising their lawful duty of producing the said two persons for remand.”
As things stands, the Bench points out in para 4 that, “The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that it was only a peaceful protest, as the two Advocates were falsely picked up under the N.D.P.S Act and were sought to be produced before the Court by the Sathankadu Police, and they only exercised their democratic right in favour of their fellow members of the Bar. While it is true that they committed it within the Court premises, the learned Counsel would rely upon the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.19420 of 2023 (C.Raja Vs. State and Anr.), more fully, upon paragraph No.5 of the order, which reads as follows:-
“5.The demeanor of an Advocate will always be different from the demeanor of a layman. Considering the position that he holds and job that he performs, an Advocate in most of the situations reacts boisterously. This is a character which is developed by an Advocate by virtue of the nature of duty that he performs for his clients. The legal profession involves fighting for the rights of the clients and the Advocate tends to react more aggressively even outside the Courts. It may be true that the petitioner had expressed himself more strongly to defend the rights of his client and that by itself should not result in a criminal prosecution against an Advocate. The main intention on the part of the petitioner was not to prevent the Government officials from performing their function and on the other hand, the petitioner was only attempting to safeguard the rights of his client (A1).””
Further, the Bench mentions in para 5 that, “The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the F.I.R could not have been registered straightaway without a complaint before the appropriate Court for offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, and would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Jeevanandham and Ors. Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police and Anr. 2018 (2) LW Crl. 606. The learned Counsel would submit that, except for protesting, it cannot be said that they prevented the Police. Realising the mistake, the Police had taken back the accused and, in fact, had let them on Station Bail, and thereafter, till today, no charge sheet whatsoever has been filed as against the two members of the Bar, which would show the justifiability of the protest.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 8 that, “Firstly, as far as the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. bars cognisance in the absence of a complaint to the concerned Court and therefore, in view of the law laid down in Jeevanandham’s case (cited supra), no F.I.R. could have been registered in respect of the said offence. As far as Section 152 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it would be made out only if any public servant, who is on duty in dispersing the unlawful assembly or suppressing a riot or affray, is threatened, obstructed or assaulted. In the instant case, the allegation is that all these accused persons prevented the Police authorities from producing the two Advocates as accused in the criminal case for the purpose of remanding them. Therefore, there is no averment in the First Information Report or in the attendant records with reference to assaulting or threatening the other Policemen who are on duty. The allegation is that, despite warnings, the protesters continued the protest.”
It is also worth noting that the Bench notes in para 9 that, “As far as the offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the offence is attracted when any person offers any resistance or obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence. In this regard, it can be seen that when the Police wanted to produce the two Advocates, namely, Dinesh and Neeraj, before the Court of law, even if the excess was committed against the Advocates, the lawful way is to appear before the Court before which they are produced, voice their objection, appeal to the learned Presiding Officer not to accept the remand, and seek lawful remedies.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 10 noting that, “Further, a protest in a democratic and peaceful manner can also be done to express solidarity and unity. However, in this case, beyond protest, after perusing the videos, the Committee has observed that Advocates were prevented from being produced before the Court. In view thereof, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material to proceed at least with reference to the offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code.”
Most significantly and so also most rationally, the Bench then encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “At the same time, considering that the respondent Police, after the incident, did not make any further attempt to produce the two persons before the concerned Court but, in turn, they themselves enlarged them on bail and that the case also remains without filing a Final Report till date, and considering the manner of prevention of duty where the protest had exceeded its limits, and considering that the occurrence is of the year 2023 and ultimately the F.I.R was filed in the year 2025 and the petitioners have been facing the proceedings for the past three years, I am of the view that the First Information Report, with reference to Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code, can also be quashed, considering the peculiar nature of the facts of the case, where, even now, it is being asserted that members of the Bar were being targeted without any involvement. However, the same can be done only if the petitioners file an affidavit expressing regret for their extreme behaviour before this Court within ten working days from today.”
Finally and resultantly, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 12 that, “In view thereof, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of on the following terms:-
(i) Upon the petitioners filing an affidavit expressing regret for the incident that happened on 02.11.2023, the F.I.R in Crime No.11 of 2025 shall stand quashed.
(ii) If any of the petitioners does not file the affidavit, the case against them can be proceeded with reference to the offence under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
All told, we thus see that the Madras High Court has made it crystal clear in this notable judgment that while advocates can protest peacefully but preventing police from producing arrested advocates before court prima facie attracts offence that is punishable under Section 225 of the IPC. It thus merits no reiteration that all advocates must pay heed to what the Madras High Court has held so unambiguously in this leading case. There can be definitely just no denying or disputing it!
